PDA

View Full Version : Military Tattoo Celebrates Queens Diamond Jubilee


Tyburn
05-20-2012, 07:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-j9A_Mbi-c

A service was held near Windsor Castle, and then the marching began :laugh: It was evident that what the Queen enjoyed the most was the fly over of the airships :)

Bonnie
05-30-2012, 11:52 PM
That was really neat, their formation to form "60". :cool:

They had a special on last night, "The Queen's Jubilee". They showed film clips of her as a girl and young woman, and at her coronation. She was only 26 when her father, King George VI, died. Sixty years...so much history.

Looking back, I think Wallis Simpson did y'all a favor, Dave. :laugh:

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 07:09 PM
That was really neat, their formation to form "60". :cool:

They had a special on last night, "The Queen's Jubilee". They showed film clips of her as a girl and young woman, and at her coronation. She was only 26 when her father, King George VI, died. Sixty years...so much history.

Looking back, I think Wallis Simpson did y'all a favor, Dave. :laugh:

:laugh:

Well...Wallis Simpson probably caused the biggest change of direction in the Lineage since The Glorious Revolution (where it was decided on the death of the Monarch then Heir had to be the closest living Anglican...which knocked about 50 odd Roman Catholics out of the running. THATS when our Direct Line became Germanic...the nearest living Protestant to the throne was in the extended Royal Family right out on the continent....What Wallis did was effectively knock just one Royal off the list...but that changes everything. Each time someone in the line of succession has children, the whole line changes and people suddenly vanish from contention.

Look at Prince Harry.

Currently he is Fourth in line as Brother of Prince William the indirect heir through Prince Charles, Son of HM The Queen.

BUT

William got married last year...and the very moment that Catherine falls pregnant, Harry will suddenly have lost all claims, along with that of anyone behind him, and any of his offspring, short of a disastor. One birth, and the line (even if Female) will be solidly down a generation from him, and each of the following Generations would have to be obliterated for the crown to backtrack up the generations.

Elizabeth was never supposed to be Queen, She was offspring, in the case of the Brother of a new, and young King. He should have reigned for thirty years minimum during which time when he had children, Everyone from Elizabeths Father downwards could breathe a sigh of relief.

But when he abdicated...His Brother was forced onto the Throne because he had no legitamate children....and Bertie, though a lovely humanbeing, wasnt made to be King. The stress of being forced to be King, AND within the first decade of his reign being at war with Adolf Hitler...you can see it in footage of him. He ages horribly, older and older. He didnt even Reign twenty years, and looking at him from 1938 to 1950 he looks like he's aged about forty years! NO JOKE.

You could tell he was going to die before the Royal Tour because when he went to the airport to wave goodbye to his daughter, he looked WORSE then Prince Philip does NOW (Philip is in his MID NINETIES!!!!!) Poor Elizabeth wasnt even IN England when he Father died and all of a sudden, someone who should never have had a realistic hope of EVER getting the Throne, would become the oldest Monarch in History...AND if she is still alive in 2015, she will also be the longest Reigning Monarch.

Now...Wallis Simpson isnt completely to blame...There was an Active Coup going on in the Church of England. They werent simply making the King abide by an archaic law...they were quite deliberately trying to force him off the throne. The Archbishop of Canterbury took an immediate dislike to Edward....Edward was what we call Low Church....and Canterbury was High Church...Canterbury took tradition and ritual REALLY seriously....Edward really couldnt give a toss...and that didnt really bode well.

You can hear the tale below :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGvDPX4S2aM

Its even called "Abdication: A Very British Coup" try to understand when you watch this film that this is work place politics, the type of lengths one has to go to win a political battle, and the sort of deviousness ive seen the church do personally, within my own experience. There are three or four parts if your really interested...but the first part will basically show you that the British Government in colusion with The Church of England, disliked the King and used Wallis Simpson as the perfect excuse to oust him. This first part just sets the scene....

British Big Businesses always act like this :laugh:

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 07:12 PM
This is also why Prince Charles is such a worry to the Royalists.

In an era when you could still get smushed for treason against the Royal Throne, you can see what Government and Church dared to do. what do you suppose in an age now even further removed from Royalty, they will dare to do if Charles, as King, were to over step his boundary?

Can you say abolision :unsure-1:

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 07:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d15B5hC99w

Part two shows the divide. Edward had lived through the Great War with a Father who was Staunchly Traditional. Edward was a rebel, who didnt like to do Traditional things. He didnt like the duties.

He began to outwardly show his dislike of these sorts of duties, meets and greets. He couldnt be arsed, rather he liked Wallis because she was anti-establishment, a free.

Lang...Canterbury at the time really, really hated this. Several Tabloids turned against him. The current Prime Minister wasnt happy either.

Wallis Simpson was the obvious thing they could use. The Secret Services actually began to investigate and spy on them :laugh:

BUT Edward was goodlooking and a celebrity with the public....that was his veil of protection. The population loved him....that probably enraged the Instituions of Church and Government even more.

Soooo Wallis and Edward go on holiday, and on the continent they are rather too open about the fact they are together, it begins to be reported in the upper class that there is an issue. Edward keeps skipping royal duties to hang out with Simpson instead. But dont worry...because Bertie goes and opens the hospital in the Kings place.

Then comes the infamous visit of Wallis to Balmoral (the scot castle holiday home) and the King refuses to invite Canterbury...sooo Bertie invites Canterbury for him. Doesnt go to well.

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 07:39 PM
Then Wallis Simpson gets her devorce

Suddenly if the Church and State does not do something...she will marry the King and be Mother of the Heirs.

They could not let that happen.

Edward becomes a bit paranoid and he evicts his Private Secretary...its obvious that Edward is going to try and do exactly what everyone if fearful of. Lang goes to the Palace (in a secret meeting with traditionalists and tabloids of that standing) and says he isnt sure he can consecrate Edward at a Coronation.

Whilst The English press was still silent, the Europeans had began printing the Holiday shots of the prair, and the American Press discovered that Wallis was single again and were talking about the prospect of her become the Kings Consort. The Queen of England!

The Coup began on Remembrance Day of that year. The Sacked Private Secretary wrote a warning to the King telling him that the Government would consider dissolving themselves if he married Wallis

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 08:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI4iOGW1wc

But Alec...the Private Secretary, had obviously written on behalf (albeit informally) of ALL the Traditionalists, include the head of the Civil Service, The Archbishop of Canterbury, One very powerful Tabloid, and The Prime Minister.

The King was concerned...Because he knew someone had put Alec up to it, but wasnt sure who. Stanley, the Prime Ministerwas called aside, and told the King that whilst he recognised the public was on his side, The Prime Minister did not approve of his choice to marry.

The King claimed it was his right to marry Wallis Simpson if he wanted. He threatened Abdication as he was pissed off that the Government WOULD allow him to be with Simpson if she was an illigitamate. But he wanted to tell the truth and have her at the coronation.

He visited a destitute part of Wales, and they LOVED him. He dedicated himself to their service, by basically telling them that the Government had let them down. The Government were not doing enough for them. Thats how the Government perceived it, when The King began to give personal assurances to the destitute that he would help them.

Now, not only did this King misbehave, want to Marry a devorcee...he wanted to go into politics :huh:

The Tabloid known as "The Times" which still runs to this day actually began to publish a reminder that the King should not get involved with politics.

His only friend at the time was Winston Churchill. He suggested Marriage without the Royal Title for Simpson as a solution. The Conservatives in office had kittens. The Prime Minister made Winston Churchill pledge not to form any political party for the King.

But to the King, Stanley said he would consult the Commonwealth.

Oh dear.

That made the Commonwealths rulling everso slightly official.

The Empire said NO

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 08:14 PM
BTW...The Prime Minister lied.

The Empire wasnt really sure.

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 08:21 PM
Then Disastor Struck.

The Bishop of Bradford went public. :laugh: He gave a surmon that said explicitly that the King should not be crowned because of his actions.

The British Press which (apart from the Times, which was only obtainable by the upperclass) began to do what they do best. "the Bishop of Bradford Says...." and out it all came into the public arena of the Kingdom.

It didnt quite have the desired effect.

Once the Public heard about Wallis Simpson, the holidays, and everything. They discovered the still loved and supported the King. The press had failed to remove the star appeal that the King had the public support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1D7c3Vea8

The People wrote letters of sympathy to the King begging him to stay and marry Wallis Simpson

Tyburn
05-31-2012, 08:41 PM
Wallis Simpson couldnt cope with the press though. Even these days Americans do not realize the power of the British Press. She moved to the Continent to gain some distance. Poor Edward was depressed.

Royalists begin to march in the streets, and the British Government soon realizes that, along with the Media, its attempts to oust the King are in danger of causing a Second English Civil War.

Westminster took its anger out completely on Winston Churchill, it was all HIS fault for sticking up for the King, and suggesting a marriage without title. He was treated like a leper and became deflated. Without his only support in Government the King couldnt continue.

Despite acting as the trigger for Bradfords outburst. Canterbury who desperately wanted to avoid the possibility of having to crown Edward as King (he was already king by default) one of the most nasty things the church has ever done, happened the day after the King finally gave up hope and abdicated, Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang told the world how bad it was that the King had abdicated as it was the ultimate insult against the GOD who had devinely selected him to rule!!

The House of Parliament rejoyced that the new King, George would be a traditionalist that would allow them to do their job and could be trusted as the ideal figure head, and no more.

Winston Churchill made a big comeback a year or so later when the Government cracked under the pressure of war. He would be ousted by the public moment after Victory in Europe, and return for a pretty disastorous term in the fifties that saw him resign completely.

His ills and losses were all forgotten or forgiven due to his wartime strength, and the love was evident when he died and was given a state funeral at Saint Paul's Cathedral in London.

Bonnie
05-31-2012, 10:38 PM
Dave! :laugh:

I've read some of your posts; I've yet to watch the film. I'll be back... :laugh:

Bella79
06-01-2012, 10:37 PM
Tyburn or any Brit on this forum.
Why is it her Jubilee in June if she became Queen February 6th upon the Kings death?!:huh:

Tyburn
06-01-2012, 11:44 PM
Tyburn or any Brit on this forum.
Why is it her Jubilee in June if she became Queen February 6th upon the Kings death?!:huh:

When a Monarch dies, instantly the next Monarch is Rulling.

However.... Theoretically, they dont get to sit on the Throne until they are Crowned...quite often that can be some time after.

King Edward...the one married to Wallis, was NEVER Crowned...Technically speaking he never actually took possession of the Throne or Crown.

The Sixty years of Elizabeth is thus NOT dated from when she became Queen by Default...but when she was Crowned. The reason why this is important dates back to several things. Firstly, in times gone by there was often great dispute as to who was the next ruller. Look at William the Conquerer...promised the throne by the King...but the moment the King died, Harold decided that he was King instead.

Secondly, the whole reason of a Monarchy is that GOD himself has selected them to rule. GOD does this by a process known as Consecration, and believe me, having been one of very few people to actually witness a moment of consecration, I can tell you that it is very powerful. At the moment of a consecration GOD makes a person sacred unto him, in the same way he makes a Church Building sacred unto him, or a Grave yard. Instead of Hallowed ground, you have a Hallowed person. This happens during a ceremony where their is an annointing. At that Momment GOD himself has sealed the Monarch as the Monarch...until that point, they are not technically speaking sanctioned by GOD, only sanctioned by the States Tradition that there must always be a monarch, thus when one dies you move to the next.

So it is her Coronation, that we celebrate as the official start of her reign. Although technically, she Reigns the moment her predecessor is dead. This is an ancient Tradition that goes right back to the Bible. Zadock the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet annointed Solomon King. Hence why that quoted action from Scripture is one of only Two Coronational Anthems.

There is one thing that always happens during a Consecration...at the moment the act occures, the true character of the individual for a brief second is revealed. Now the whole ceremony was recorded for Queen Elizabeth...except for one part....the actual consecrational anointing.

She specifically requested a canope be used to hide her, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. For her, it was a personal and intimate moment between Her and GOD alone. Noone got to see the moment that GOD confirmed her Queen.

Hope that answers your Question.

Here are the Coronational Anthems

(I Was Glad)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u6-CpU-1EY (Catherines introit to marry Prince William was to the same music)

(Zadock the priest)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1W1XJ96y9k (Shows footage of the actual; event 60 years ago this weekend exactly) (The instruments she is given to hold are The Orb and Sceptors. Believe it or not, its most uncomfortable. She sits in an ancient wooden Chair which was the original British Throne, or as close as we can get, with a crown ballenced, and I do say BALLENCED on her head, its heavy. meanwhile she holds a heavy golden ball with a cross on the size of her head in one hand, and two golden wands in the other hand (both in the same) whilst wearing about twenty layers of heavy fabric vestments, that do feel and weigh like carpet.

Bella79
06-02-2012, 12:13 AM
When a Monarch dies, instantly the next Monarch is Rulling.

However.... Theoretically, they dont get to sit on the Throne until they are Crowned...quite often that can be some time after.

King Edward...the one married to Wallis, was NEVER Crowned...Technically speaking he never actually took possession of the Throne or Crown.

The Sixty years of Elizabeth is thus NOT dated from when she became Queen by Default...but when she was Crowned. The reason why this is important dates back to several things. Firstly, in times gone by there was often great dispute as to who was the next ruller. Look at William the Conquerer...promised the throne by the King...but the moment the King died, Harold decided that he was King instead.

Secondly, the whole reason of a Monarchy is that GOD himself has selected them to rule. GOD does this by a process known as Consecration, and believe me, having been one of very few people to actually witness a moment of consecration, I can tell you that it is very powerful. At the moment of a consecration GOD makes a person sacred unto him, in the same way he makes a Church Building sacred unto him, or a Grave yard. Instead of Hallowed ground, you have a Hallowed person. This happens during a ceremony where their is an annointing. At that Momment GOD himself has sealed the Monarch as the Monarch...until that point, they are not technically speaking sanctioned by GOD, only sanctioned by the States Tradition that there must always be a monarch, thus when one dies you move to the next.

So it is her Coronation, that we celebrate as the official start of her reign. Although technically, she Reigns the moment her predecessor is dead. This is an ancient Tradition that goes right back to the Bible. Zadock the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet annointed Solomon King. Hence why that quoted action from Scripture is one of only Two Coronational Anthems.

There is one thing that always happens during a Consecration...at the moment the act occures, the true character of the individual for a brief second is revealed. Now the whole ceremony was recorded for Queen Elizabeth...except for one part....the actual consecrational anointing.

She specifically requested a canope be used to hide her, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. For her, it was a personal and intimate moment between Her and GOD alone. Noone got to see the moment that GOD confirmed her Queen.

Hope that answers your Question.

Here are the Coronational Anthems

(I Was Glad)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u6-CpU-1EY (Catherines introit to marry Prince William was to the same music)

(Zadock the priest)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1W1XJ96y9k (Shows footage of the actual; event 60 years ago this weekend exactly) (The instruments she is given to hold are The Orb and Sceptors. Believe it or not, its most uncomfortable. She sits in an ancient wooden Chair which was the original British Throne, or as close as we can get, with a crown ballenced, and I do say BALLENCED on her head, its heavy. meanwhile she holds a heavy golden ball with a cross on the size of her head in one hand, and two golden wands in the other hand (both in the same) whilst wearing about twenty layers of heavy fabric vestments, that do feel and weigh like carpet.

Thanks Tyburn a friend asked so basically it was when God sealed the deal in June not her coronation in February?!

Tyburn
06-02-2012, 04:59 PM
Thanks Tyburn a friend asked so basically it was when God sealed the deal in June not her coronation in February?!

No no...Her Coronation was in June...but she was Queen the moment her Father died in February...there was Four Month gap between her becoming Queen and Her Coronation.

Its the Coronation that makes it 100percent official.

The Jubilee Celebrations began today. Her Britannic Majesty is a great sports fan. She likes Horse Race, so much she actually has her own stable and she breeds race Horses herself as a hobby.

Today she went to the Horse Races :happydancing:

Bonnie
06-06-2012, 04:14 AM
No no...Her Coronation was in June...but she was Queen the moment her Father died in February...there was Four Month gap between her becoming Queen and Her Coronation.

Its the Coronation that makes it 100percent official.

The Jubilee Celebrations began today.

Wait...her father died in February 1952 and her coronation wasn't until June 2, 1953--that's a year and four month gap, if my math isn't off. Why is there such a long gap between when her reign began and her official coronation? And why didn't the Jubilee celebrations begin on June 2, the month and day of her actual coronation?

Btw, thanks for those links, that was very interesting. I didn't know about all the behind-the-scenes plotting that took place, or how popular he was with the common people, much like Princess Diana.

Tyburn
06-06-2012, 08:13 PM
Wait...her father died in February 1952 and her coronation wasn't until June 2, 1953--that's a year and four month gap, if my math isn't off. Why is there such a long gap between when her reign began and her official coronation? And why didn't the Jubilee celebrations begin on June 2, the month and day of her actual coronation?

Btw, thanks for those links, that was very interesting. I didn't know about all the behind-the-scenes plotting that took place, or how popular he was with the common people, much like Princess Diana.

I think there is a gap for a number of reasons. Firstly because as the coronation is the endorsement of GOD, the country has to be certain they are crowning the right monarch. In times gone by their has been much despute about who should be next on the throne, and the gap gives time for these desputes to be played out.

Secondly...they take a hell of a lot of planning and organisation...and finally...some of me thinks it is so that the Government and the Monarchy can ballence the politics of power before take off...look at the thing with how they ousted Edward and how they saw the deadline to do that as his coronation. Some of me thinks its so they have a chance to try and get rid of the monarch before that particular person is thrust upon them for life :laugh:

I dont know why the dates are slightly off...I mean...we mark it on the date of the coronation, but celebrate it from february of the year before :blink: sounds too English to be true that :laugh:

Bonnie
06-06-2012, 08:46 PM
I think there is a gap for a number of reasons. Firstly because as the coronation is the endorsement of GOD, the country has to be certain they are crowning the right monarch. In times gone by their has been much despute about who should be next on the throne, and the gap gives time for these desputes to be played out.

Secondly...they take a hell of a lot of planning and organisation...and finally...some of me thinks it is so that the Government and the Monarchy can ballence the politics of power before take off...look at the thing with how they ousted Edward and how they saw the deadline to do that as his coronation. Some of me thinks its so they have a chance to try and get rid of the monarch before that particular person is thrust upon them for life :laugh:

I dont know why the dates are slightly off...I mean...we mark it on the date of the coronation, but celebrate it from february of the year before :blink: sounds too English to be true that :laugh:

:laugh:

They were showing all the festivities yesterday on CNN...the coach ride, the balcony appearance. Prince Charles has aged a lot; the Queen looks better than him. She's always very tasteful especially with her hats. :laugh: I won't mention Camilla other than I don't like her. :wink:

So these celebrations will continue to June of next year?

VCURamFan
06-07-2012, 10:59 PM
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/epic-fail-photos-engrish-funny-i-say-jones-i-do-believe-your-ma-sopmods-reflex-sight-is-dusty.jpg